The impact of side effect framing on COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions in an Australian sample

To evaluate the effect of presenting positively attribute-framed side effect information on COVID-19 booster vaccine intention relative to standard negatively-framed wording and a no-intervention control.

A representative sample of Australian adults (N = 1204) were randomised to one of six conditions within a factorial design: Framing (Positive; Negative; Control) × Vaccine (Familiar (Pfizer); Unfamiliar (Moderna)).

Negative Framing involved presenting the likelihood of experiencing side effects (e.g., heart inflammation is very rare, 1 in every 80,000 will be affected), whereas Positive Framing involved presenting the same information but as the likelihood of not experiencing side effects (e.g., 79,999 in every 80,000 will not be affected).

Booster vaccine intention measured pre- and post-intervention.

Participants were more familiar with the Pfizer vaccine (t(1203) = 28.63, p <.001, Cohen's d_z = 0.83). Positive Framing (M = 75.7, SE = 0.9, 95% CI = [73.9, 77.4]) increased vaccine intention relative to Negative Framing (M = 70.7, SE = 0.9, 95% CI = [68.9, 72.4]) overall (F(1, 1192) = 4.68, p =.031, η_p² = 0.004). Framing interacted with Vaccine and Baseline Intention (F(2, 1192) = 6.18, p =.002, η_p² = 0.01). Positive Framing was superior, or at least equal, to Negative Framing and Control at increasing Booster Intention, irrespective of participants' pre-intervention level of intent and vaccine type. Side effect worry and perceived severity mediated the effect of Positive vs. Negative Framing across vaccines.

Positive framing of side effect information appears superior for increasing vaccine intent relative to the standard negative wording currently used.

See: aspredicted.org/LDX_2ZL.